If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think US issues with Muslim-dominated nations are overblown. We must also consider the branch of Islam and its relative nature of liberalism or conservativism. The same thing holds true for Christianity. Some branches of Christianity would like to outlaw vaccines, stem-cell research, ect. There is nothing in the Koran about forcing people to convert - that is a small strain of Islam called Wahabism which developed in what is probably the US's biggest Arab ally: Saudi Arabia. They are a minority but their actions make a lot of noise akin to radical Christians who perform terroristic acts such as abortion clinic bombings and doctor assassinations or gay beatings.

Further, many of the issues the US faces in the Middle East (ignoring the fact that we have fairly amiable relations with many of the nations and the Arab League [I understand Islam and Arab are not interchangeable but they are undoubtedly correlated in Western minds]) are the result of the US historical role in propping up puppet governments in former Ottoman territories. We have supported dictators in favor of stability and now must explain ourselves to people who feel we aided their oppression. The biggest positive is that many young Arabs and Islamic Arabs are in favor of democracy and its associated freedom of religion. Egyptians feared the choice they were left with when more moderate/liberal candidates barely lost out in their election (44% of vote split among a couple candidates: 22% each) resulted in a run-off between an Islamic Party and the Military Party of the past.

I think US issues with Muslim-dominated nations are overblown. We must also consider the branch of Islam and its relative nature of liberalism or conservativism. The same thing holds true for Christianity. Some branches of Christianity would like to outlaw vaccines, stem-cell research, ect. There is nothing in the Koran about forcing people to convert - that is a small strain of Islam called Wahabism which developed in what is probably the US's biggest Arab ally: Saudi Arabia. They are a minority but their actions make a lot of noise akin to radical Christians who perform terroristic acts such as abortion clinic bombings and doctor assassinations or gay beatings.

Further, many of the issues the US faces in the Middle East (ignoring the fact that we have fairly amiable relations with many of the nations and the Arab League [I understand Islam and Arab are not interchangeable but they are undoubtedly correlated in Western minds]) are the result of the US historical role in propping up puppet governments in former Ottoman territories. We have supported dictators in favor of stability and now must explain ourselves to people who feel we aided their oppression. The biggest positive is that many young Arabs and Islamic Arabs are in favor of democracy and its associated freedom of religion. Egyptians feared the choice they were left with when more moderate/liberal candidates barely lost out in their election (44% of vote split among a couple candidates: 22% each) resulted in a run-off between an Islamic Party and the Military Party of the past.

I think US issues with Muslim-dominated nations are overblown. We must also consider the branch of Islam and its relative nature of liberalism or conservativism. The same thing holds true for Christianity. Some branches of Christianity would like to outlaw vaccines, stem-cell research, ect. There is nothing in the Koran about forcing people to convert - that is a small strain of Islam called Wahabism which developed in what is probably the US's biggest Arab ally: Saudi Arabia. They are a minority but their actions make a lot of noise akin to radical Christians who perform terroristic acts such as abortion clinic bombings and doctor assassinations or gay beatings.

Further, many of the issues the US faces in the Middle East (ignoring the fact that we have fairly amiable relations with many of the nations and the Arab League [I understand Islam and Arab are not interchangeable but they are undoubtedly correlated in Western minds]) are the result of the US historical role in propping up puppet governments in former Ottoman territories. We have supported dictators in favor of stability and now must explain ourselves to people who feel we aided their oppression. The biggest positive is that many young Arabs and Islamic Arabs are in favor of democracy and its associated freedom of religion. Egyptians feared the choice they were left with when more moderate/liberal candidates barely lost out in their election (44% of vote split among a couple candidates: 22% each) resulted in a run-off between an Islamic Party and the Military Party of the past.

You are speaking like a politician here. I know the reported facts. But I feel uncomfortable voting for someone who at some point may need to take a stand on his religion potentially. Does he go against his own, for the betterment of the nation he runs, or does he align with his beliefs?

As I said, not worth the risk to me. I have zero problem with muslims being elected to lower offices, they don't have as much power. But his country was founded with judeo-christian beliefs, and while I am not a practicing catholic, I think the progression of this country is coming at too steep a price.

If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

You are speaking like a politician here. I know the reported facts. But I feel uncomfortable voting for someone who at some point may need to take a stand on his religion potentially. Does he go against his own, for the betterment of the nation he runs, or does he align with his beliefs?

As I said, not worth the risk to me. I have zero problem with muslims being elected to lower offices, they don't have as much power. But his country was founded with judeo-christian beliefs, and while I am not a practicing catholic, I think the progression of this country is coming at too steep a price.

My Political Science major finally comes in handy

This is the age of social media and individuality where everyone is happy to espouse their special unique view of the world. The hold of religion and its leaders is eroding. We can't buy into peoples' affiliations as defining them anymore. We have gay Republicans and conservative Democrats. We have 3pt shooting PFs and post-banging PGs (just trying to tie basketball back in).

Personal beliefs direct everyone's personal decisions. A person's faith is included in that, however, there is a difference between being guided by faith and imposing religion. We know that the latter won't happen. It's written in our constitution and we have 2 other branches that balance the executive. Any laws on religion would be thrown out by the Supreme Court without delay.

If we're talking about an executive order or some form of intervention, you'd have to describe for me a bit further what we're talking about. I really see nothing that would prevent a Muslim president from running this country in a similar way to Christian counterparts aside from not serving pork, drinking alcohol, gambling, ect. Does that mean those things would be outlawed? Of course not (the president just wouldn't be seen at a bar or casino ). Congress would never pass such laws and I doubt anyone who would emerge as a serious contender for the presidency would offer such legislation.

Fun Fact: the older we get, the more conservative our beliefs and vice versa - younger = more liberal

I feel like any president has to be regarded on a spectrum or sort of a ranking because every president disappoints with regard to campaign promises. Rather than go into all sorts of conservative vs. liberal debates about everything politics of the last 4-12 years, I will simply state that I trust Obama to run the country for 4 more years over Romney. I also will say that I believe Romney is a weaker candidate and that Chris Christie did not run because of the difficulty in upsetting an incumbent at any level.

Absolutely disgusted by him. I was with Bush, Cheaney, and Romney as well. But Obama takes the cake for me honestly. I am socially liberal, fiscally beyond conservative. But the social aspects don't have any bearing on my day to day life. I think the states should handle their own social issues, and federal government should worry about much bigger things.

If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

This is the age of social media and individuality where everyone is happy to espouse their special unique view of the world. The hold of religion and its leaders is eroding. We can't buy into peoples' affiliations as defining them anymore. We have gay Republicans and conservative Democrats. We have 3pt shooting PFs and post-banging PGs (just trying to tie basketball back in).

Personal beliefs direct everyone's personal decisions. A person's faith is included in that, however, there is a difference between being guided by faith and imposing religion. We know that the latter won't happen. It's written in our constitution and we have 2 other branches that balance the executive. Any laws on religion would be thrown out by the Supreme Court without delay.

If we're talking about an executive order or some form of intervention, you'd have to describe for me a bit further what we're talking about. I really see nothing that would prevent a Muslim president from running this country in a similar way to Christian counterparts aside from not serving pork, drinking alcohol, gambling, ect. Does that mean those things would be outlawed? Of course not (the president just wouldn't be seen at a bar or casino ). Congress would never pass such laws and I doubt anyone who would emerge as a serious contender for the presidency would offer such legislation.

Fun Fact: the older we get, the more conservative our beliefs and vice versa - younger = more liberal

I am not willing to take the risk.

Your last statement is dead on, with me adding, you are also a product of your environment. I moved to Texas when I was 18, my brother to Washington D.C. Guess which one of us is conservative, and which one is liberal?

If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

I feel like any president has to be regarded on a spectrum or sort of a ranking because every president disappoints with regard to campaign promises. Rather than go into all sorts of conservative vs. liberal debates about everything politics of the last 4-12 years, I will simply state that I trust Obama to run the country for 4 more years over Romney. I also will say that I believe Romney is a weaker candidate and that Chris Christie did not run because of the difficulty in upsetting an incumbent at any level.

I don't think Obama does much outside campaigning. He has been brought up with the dirty Chicago politics system, been given entitlements his entire life, and has never held a job in the private sector or had to meet payroll. I have zero faith in him righting the ship, only continuing to to deflect our problems onto different entities.

Romney will be a stop-gap until the next idiot comes along. He will get portions of Obamacare repealed that don't need to be there, and that is probably it. He may try to drop taxes, maybe make some cost cuts, but that is literally a stop-gap.

If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

Hawkeye, how did Obama most disappoint you? I personally think Romney would be a good choice.

I don't think he has the slightest idea on how economics actually works. I don't think he has any pride in being American, with his apologetic tour to start his presidency making us look like Milicic. I don't trust a man to fix a nation's economy who has been given everything in his life, and then speaks to small businesses as if they are "lucky". I don't believe higher taxation and forcing huge healthcare reform from a broken system does anything but sets up back years in the quality of doctors and treatment we will see.

Basically, I think he will rival Jimmy Carter as the worst president we have had in modern times. However, I understand that judgement will ultimately come 5-10 years from now.

If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

Kind of like the old saying. If you aren't liberal when you're young you don't have a heart, if you aren't conservative when your older you don't have a brain.

Well, most young people, especially college age, are very liberal, because they have no possessions, don't pay taxes (to a high degree), and still live off mommy and daddy. When you get out there and get time behind you where you see our politicians basically just put on a show for us, and then drink wine and travel the world on our dime, you tend to want to shrink the **** out of them.

If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.